Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/189/2015

Bhupinder Sharma s/o Sh.Sunil Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mehandiratta Music World - Opp.Party(s)

N.S.Cheema

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 189 of 2015.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 01.06.2015.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 31.08.2016.

Bhupinder Sharma son of Shri Sunil Sharma resident of village & Post Office Hartan, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

 

                                                           Versus

 

1. M/s Mehandiratta Music World, 4-C, Mela Singh Chowk, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar through its Prop./ Partner/ Manager.
2. Lenova Mobiles Service Centre, Care, 12 A, opp. N.A. Mall, Hostel Road, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar Contact No. 9034149899 & 9354969542 through its Managing Director/Chairman/Authorized Signatory.

Lenova India Pvt. Ltd. Village Doddenakundi, Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Marathhali Post, K.R. Puram Hubli, Bangalore 560037.                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                     ...Respondents          

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG,  PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. N.S.Cheema, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

               Respondent No.1 already ex-parte.

               Sh. Shiv Raj Singh representative for respondent No.2.

               Sh. B.S.Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.3.

           

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Bhupinder Sharma has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the mobile set in question with new one or to pay the cost of mobile set alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.   

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased one mobile hand set make Lenova M-5850 vide bill No. 1901 dated 06.11.2014 for Rs. 14,700/- from OP No.1. The mobile set in question was having warranty of 12 months and the complainant was assured that if any defect occurs in the said mobile set within warranty period, the mobile set will be replaced. Since the very beginning of purchase of the said mobile set, there always remained network problem, besides this, mobile set in question has heating problem at normal time also. Accordingly, the complainant visited the OP No.2 who replaced the main board on 22.11.2014 and assured the complainant that he will not now face any such problem in future but the problem remained intact. On 01.01.2015, complainant again approached the Op No.2 who again changed the main board of the mobile set in question but this time also the problem continued till date but when the complainant again approached the Op No.1 & 2 then they flatly refused to listen the genuine complaint of complainant. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.08.2015.

4.                     Ops No.2 & 3 appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections and on merit it has been admitted that mobile was purchased on 06.11.2014 and on receipt of the complaint from the customer, a replacement certificate was issued to the complainant on 13.11.2014 against which the replacement was provided by Op No.1 on 22.11.2014. The replacement worked perfectly well till 24.03.2015 after which the first complaint of “Network Issue” was received and the same was resolved on 30.03.2015 by changing the PCB of the mobile set in question. Lastly, it has been stated that complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2.

5.                     Op No.3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections and on merit it has been mentioned that as per terms of Lenova, warranty if the product does not function as warranted during the warranty period, customer may obtain the warranty service by contacting Lenova or Lenova approved service provider. In the present case, first call was lodged vide SIRN1561411270002 on 27.11.2014 i.e. after 3 weeks from the date of purchase, for network and heating issue. The handset in question was duly serviced by replacing the printed circuit board PCB (Mother Board). So, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.3 as the Ops have provided service free of costs to the complainant as and when he visited the service centre. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.                     In support of case,  counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and photo copies of documents such as copy of bill bearing No. 1901 dated 06.11.2014 as Annexure C-1, copy of Lenova Service record as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

7.                     On the other hand, counsel for Op No.2 failed to adduce any evidence, hence, his evidence was closed by court order dated 12.05.2016. However, counsel for OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr. Ronendro Singh, authorized representative of Lenova as Annexure RW3/A and photo copies of documents such as copy of resolution as Annexure R3/1, Terms and conditions of warranty as Annexure R3/2, Service Job card as Annexure R3/3 and R3/4, copy of resolution as annexure R3/5, Service record as Annexure R3/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.3.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

9.                     It is not disputed that complainant purchased the mobile set make Lenova M5850 vide bill No. 1901 dated 06.11.2013 amounting to Rs. 14,700/- from Op No.1 manufactured by OP No.3. It is also not disputed that first time the mobile set in question was replaced with new one on 13.11.2014 i.e. after a period of just 7 days and further the mobile set in question was again repaired by Op No.2 and mother board was changed on 24.03.2015 which is duly evident from the job sheets Annexure R3/3 to R3/4. This fact has also been admitted by the Ops No.2 & 3 in their written statement as the mobile set in question of the complainant become defective during the currency of warranty period of one year and mother board was changed by Op No.2, so, it is clear that a defective mobile set in question was sold by the Ops to the complainant. Although the complainant has not filed any expert report that mobile set in question was having manufacturing defect but from the perusal of the job sheets, it is clearly evident that mobile set in question was having manufacturing defect from the date of its purchase as firstly the mobile set in question was replaced with new one and after that mother board of the replaced mobile set in question was replaced by OP No.2. So, we are of the considered view that due to the defective mobile set in question the complainant might have suffered mental agony, harassment as well as economic loss. As such, the complainant is entitled for relief.

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Ops No. 2 & 3 to refund the amount of Rs. 14,700/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days subject to deposition of old mobile set failing which the Ops No.2 & 3 will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the defaulting period. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 31.08.2016.

(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

 PRESIDENT

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                    MEMBER.